What kind of trash talk is that?

41% just out of the gate is pretty damn good in anybody's book. Against a Crown Princess, it's phenomenal.

TRASH TALK & nothing more than that!

SANDERS 2016!!!!!

'hear' the voters, a bit too late imo.

I'll expect her operaters to pull undemocratic stunts like they did in '08 like when she forced Obama off the Michigan ballot.

Participants self-select and in this case, only about 1/3 of attendees actually participated because attendees are discouraged from participating due to it's unscientific nature.

That said, as a long-time DPW member and convention attendee myself, I am impressed with the numbers Bernie received.

Not trying to rain on everyone's parade. Just trying to inject a little reality.

Any scientific data to support the hypothesis that the polls are unscientific because two-thirds of people self select to not participate because they believe it to be unscientific?

Seriously, one of the things democrats love to do is vote for things and people. Though some democrats at conventions poo-poo the resolutions process but many of them are either jaded or they claim to be "moderates." (whatever the hell moderate means). Every caucus whether precinct or district and every opportunity I have noticed for a 'straw poll' has frequently had near universal participation.

Of course my observations are highly unscientific.

...vote in a straw poll, therefore all of WI supports Bernie at the same percentage? Remember, too, that 511 participants in this straw poll is only a third of the attendance at this convention, a convention where delegates are regularly told not to participate because it is very unscientific and misleading.

And you want me to provide you with evidence this isn't scientific?

Because of course Hillary haters (GOP, Et al) and Bernie supporters have no reason to care about facts if they might not suit their agenda.



All Dems should care about how they are being played here.

Sanders supporters? That is totally inappropriate.

By all means, lets kill the messenger when we don't like the message.

I get sybylla's point. There are power players in all elections who hide behind legitimate supporters and try to pull strings.

I'm not offended to be grouped with them. As a Wisconsin voter, I'd rather we had real numbers on the ground so we know exactly the amount of work to be done, rather than cheering bullshit numbers and moving on to another state.

I get we are all happy for any good news, but we can't win if we base all our work on false assumptions - false assumptions many of our opponents would like us to bank on.

It was the slur on Sanders supporters, which had bupkis to do with the talk about whether or not the poll 'means' anything.

1) You projected motivations onto people that were in the poll. The idea that people refused to take part in a poll because they knew it was unscientific is an absurdity. Whether you want to admit it or not.

This reasoning seems kind of circular. And your use of the term 'unscientific' is dismissive.

2) Tossing out the term 'Hillary haters' and suggesting that Bernie Sanders supporters don't care about facts is kind of difficult to accept and suggests you wandered into the wrong room.

I haven't seen any hesitation on polls for the last year that were over a year out from the Iowa primary during the time where Hillary was the only candidate running.

I would also point out that "Hardcore Democrats" are usually the people who bother to show up. Those are your activists. Those are the people that will knock on the doors and beat the pavement for whatever candidate is chosen. Ignoring them, diminishing them, or dismissing them is a bad strategy.

when the Republicans start making up scandals about him.

If he starts polling this well in several states, they will probably say he drinks the blood of aborted babies.

I dedicate the Aerosmith song to Bernie supporters - 'Dream On!'

Last edited Mon Jun 8, 2015, 10:41 AM - Edit history (1)

Your post is inappropriate in this group.

No kidding!!

As a Sanders supporter, I'm disappointed that all we get to do in here is shit rainbows and name our unicorns.

Maybe a sticky post defining "safe haven" would be helpful for those of us who want to talk about the downsides as well as the upsides of what it will take to get Bernie elected.

I sincerely doubt that you are given what you've contributed so far to this group.

All of them.

I know no Bernie supporter in or out of the party would slow down the fight if Clinton pulls ahead in delegates

but this is exactly the point of carefully-jiggered primaries--it's like gerrymandering: voting has to be decoupled from the voters or the money might not be as posh

to them a primary is a sort of sabotage, as much as NADER!!1 but as we saw with Cegelis, Lamont, McKinney, Halter, Romanoff, Sestak, Grayson, Kucinich, Buono, Lutrin, Rev. Manuel Sykes, Weiland, and now Wendy Davis and Grimes they can attack a challenger or dump someone who'll upset the rules of the game by not playing from a dozen different angles

I think this helps Bernie simply because it will get him more media attention, and get a lot of lower info folks who hear about the poll to start asking 'Who is this Bernie Sanders guy, and what is he saying or doing to draw so much support?'

could be the last chance to hold on to our Democracy & Liberty .

One BIG kick for Democracy & Liberty!!